Lois Biener1, Anthony M Roman1, Scott A Mc Inerney1, Dragana Bolcic-Jankovic1, Dororthy K Hatsukami2, Alexandra Loukas3, Richard J O'Connor4, Laura Romito5. 1. Center for Survey Research, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. 3. Department of Kinesiology & Health Education, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA. 4. Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA. 5. Department of Oral Biology, Indiana University School of Dentistry, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether snus might become a strategy for reducing the harm associated with cigarette smoking in the USA as appears to be the case in Sweden, we examined receptivity to snus use in two cities with the greatest exposure to the major brands. METHODS: A dual frame, telephone survey and a brief mail survey were conducted in 2011 and 2012 in Indianapolis, Indiana and Dallas/Fort Worth Texas. Over 5000 adults completed surveys. Trial, ever use, current use and reasons for using or quitting snus after trial were measured. RESULTS: Among male smokers, 29.9% had ever tried snus (CI 22.7 to 38.1) and 4.2% were current users (CI 1.6 to 10.7). Among female smokers, 8.5% ever tried snus (CI 4.4 to 15.7) and current use was unknown. Current use was virtually absent among former smokers and never smokers. A major predictor of any level of snus use was current use of conventional smokeless tobacco. Those who tried and gave up snus cited curiosity (41.3%) and the fact that it was available at low or no cost (30%) as reasons for trial; reasons for not continuing included preferring another form of tobacco (75.1%) and disliking the mouth feel (34.6%). Almost all current snus users indicated that they were trying to cut down on cigarettes, but few (3.9%) were using it to quit smoking entirely. CONCLUSIONS: The low rate of adoption of snus suggests that neither the hopes nor the fears surrounding this new product are likely to be realised in the USA with the current marketing patterns. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether snus might become a strategy for reducing the harm associated with cigarette smoking in the USA as appears to be the case in Sweden, we examined receptivity to snus use in two cities with the greatest exposure to the major brands. METHODS: A dual frame, telephone survey and a brief mail survey were conducted in 2011 and 2012 in Indianapolis, Indiana and Dallas/Fort Worth Texas. Over 5000 adults completed surveys. Trial, ever use, current use and reasons for using or quitting snus after trial were measured. RESULTS: Among male smokers, 29.9% had ever tried snus (CI 22.7 to 38.1) and 4.2% were current users (CI 1.6 to 10.7). Among female smokers, 8.5% ever tried snus (CI 4.4 to 15.7) and current use was unknown. Current use was virtually absent among former smokers and never smokers. A major predictor of any level of snus use was current use of conventional smokeless tobacco. Those who tried and gave up snus cited curiosity (41.3%) and the fact that it was available at low or no cost (30%) as reasons for trial; reasons for not continuing included preferring another form of tobacco (75.1%) and disliking the mouth feel (34.6%). Almost all current snus users indicated that they were trying to cut down on cigarettes, but few (3.9%) were using it to quit smoking entirely. CONCLUSIONS: The low rate of adoption of snus suggests that neither the hopes nor the fears surrounding this new product are likely to be realised in the USA with the current marketing patterns. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Entities:
Keywords:
Harm Reduction; Non-cigarette tobacco products; Public policy
Authors: David T Levy; Elizabeth A Mumford; K Michael Cummings; Elizabeth A Gilpin; Gary Giovino; Andrew Hyland; David Sweanor; Kenneth E Warner Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Amanda J Quisenberry; Mikhail N Koffarnus; Leonard H Epstein; Warren K Bickel Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2017-07-05 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Ellen Meier; Bruce R Lindgren; Amanda Anderson; Sarah A Reisinger; Kaila J Norton; Joni Jensen; Lori Strayer; Laura Dick; Mei-Kuen Tang; Menglan Chen; Steven G Carmella; Stephen S Hecht; Sharon E Murphy; Jing Yang; Irina Stepanov; Richard J O'Connor; Peter G Shields; Dorothy K Hatsukami Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-04-17 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Jeffrey S Stein; A George Wilson; Mikhail N Koffarnus; Michael C Judd; Warren K Bickel Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Sarah E Adkison; Richard J O'Connor; Maansi Bansal-Travers; K Michael Cummings; Vaughan W Rees; Dorothy K Hatsukami Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-07-17 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Sarah E Adkison; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Vaughan W Rees; Dorothy K Hatsukami; K Michael Cummings; Richard J O'Connor Journal: Am J Health Behav Date: 2016-09
Authors: Jessica L Burris; Amy E Wahlquist; Anthony J Alberg; K Michael Cummings; Kevin M Gray; Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer; Matthew J Carpenter Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2016-07-15 Impact factor: 3.913